3 ms·

Great! So if I am hit (blind pedestrian) by an AV at dusk, I can at least say it wouldn't have happened statistically if I weren't out and about so late? Sorr

by lynx23 2y ago

Great! So if I am hit (blind pedestrian) by an AV at dusk, I can at least say it wouldn't have happened statistically if I weren't out and about so late? Sorry, but these "Is safer then human drivers" statistics dont decrease my AV anxiety. No, they make it even worse, because wording makes it obvious some of you want them to look good.

freeone3000 2y ago
The overall fatality rate went down by 90%, though. That’s a fairly big deal: 30,000 fewer fatalities per year in the US alone. The ideal, of course, is no cars: but if you have to have a car, the next-best is no humans near it or in it.
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  > The ideal, of course, is no cars: Of course? While I can get behind mixed development attitudes that integrate walking and biking systems with publix transit, cars will always be necessary. It's foolish to think cars are a scam on the earth - not every errand or trip can be walkable or covered by public transit or even affordable for a family.
Dylan16807 2y ago
It depends on what the accident pattern at dawn and dusk looks like. If it's dangerous enough to pedestrians then maybe we need to restrict autonomous cars at those times until they have better testing. But unless you only go out at dusk and dawn, you should be glad that these particular level 4 systems are controlling cars.
- lynx23 2y ago
  "You should be glad" is so very much patronising, I cant write here what I think of that down-looking behaviour.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It's pretty normal to say people should be glad about unambiguously good numbers. I don't know why you think it's patronizing. In the scenario given, your risk is lower. What do you not like? If you think the numbers are wrong, that's reasonable. But this thread of conversation was based on taking the numbers at face value.

3 ms·

Great! So if I am hit (blind pedestrian) by an AV at dusk, I can at least say it wouldn't have happened statistically if I weren't out and about so late? Sorr

by lynx23 2y ago

freeone3000 2y ago
The overall fatality rate went down by 90%, though. That’s a fairly big deal: 30,000 fewer fatalities per year in the US alone. The ideal, of course, is no cars: but if you have to have a car, the next-best is no humans near it or in it.
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  > The ideal, of course, is no cars: Of course? While I can get behind mixed development attitudes that integrate walking and biking systems with publix transit, cars will always be necessary. It's foolish to think cars are a scam on the earth - not every errand or trip can be walkable or covered by public transit or even affordable for a family.
Dylan16807 2y ago
It depends on what the accident pattern at dawn and dusk looks like. If it's dangerous enough to pedestrians then maybe we need to restrict autonomous cars at those times until they have better testing. But unless you only go out at dusk and dawn, you should be glad that these particular level 4 systems are controlling cars.
- lynx23 2y ago
  "You should be glad" is so very much patronising, I cant write here what I think of that down-looking behaviour.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It's pretty normal to say people should be glad about unambiguously good numbers. I don't know why you think it's patronizing. In the scenario given, your risk is lower. What do you not like? If you think the numbers are wrong, that's reasonable. But this thread of conversation was based on taking the numbers at face value.